As I've suggested elsewhere, a raw inquiry begun at the level of the citizens might flesh out, literally, hundreds of smart questions about the SP.
Jumping to the conclusion before the questions get asked is suggestive of the SP never getting serious consideration because one way or the other its working assumptions require intelligent critique.
Also, as I've suggested elsewhere, the web of interests which become activated because of the scale and the property and public rights necessarily arrayed around an ambitious plan at this scale, figure into what is--for sure--a much more complicated vision than Savannah has outlined.
Basically, there is a need for a plan about the planning.
***
I think the basic creation of a peninsula costs tens of millions and then the build out of amenity and functional and living and commercial space costs some amount in the many millions. The cost basis of the whole project is a technical matter of course.
The peril imposed on the vision is that intelligent inquiry will pull apart the fantasy and hopefully a realistic plan will be revealed in its place and left intact.
Lakewood Park and Pennisula Presentation
Moderator: Jim O'Bryan
-
Stephen Calhoun
- Posts: 208
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 6:51 pm
- Location: NEO
- Contact:
-
Jim O'Bryan
- Posts: 14196
- Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:12 pm
- Location: Lakewood
- Contact:
-
Phil Florian
- Posts: 538
- Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 4:24 pm
I saw Ms. Farris present her material last night and I think she did a wonderful job. I was less impressed with the Council's response. There was one gent who sat in front of Ms. Farris as she made her presentation and he had back to her most of the time shaking his head. Color me unimpressed with basic listening skills let alone active naysaying during a presentation.
I liked Mr. Demro's question: "Why can't we use this layout for the new park? This looks better than the park we have approved and a plan we paid thousands to develop." The answer was we could look at this but it would take a motion from the council to do so and there wasn't one. Can there still be at a later date?
I know the Peninsula is the bread and butter of this plan and doing it would eventually pay for all the other work (over a decade from now) but since the Council has already set aside money to pay for a new park renovation, why can't they consider Savanah's plan in place of what I am hearing is a lousy plan? Savanah's plan wasn't just some one part plan. She had proposals that can all be independently acted upon with positive results. The windfarm and/or water intake was a great idea. This can be done without doing the rest of the plan and could provide income and resources to pay for other parts of the plan. The park, which has money put aside, could also be done using her plan.
Stephen's "plan to plan" idea is fine if Council was static on the park but they aren't. There are plans in the books and money set aside and it doesn't sound nearly as good as what Savanah has proposed. How do we, as mere taxpaying citizens, say, "whoa, hold it and take a look at this new plan." I didn't see any opportunity to last night and it was clear our city planning gent was already moving on and ready to put her proposal in storage for future planners to look at...possibly as a warning against creativity and community planning.
So seriously...how do we move forward on getting council to take it seriously vs. smiling and "entertaining" the kid, as I interpreted some of the responses I heard last night?
Savannah...seriously great work. Keep it up!
Phil
I liked Mr. Demro's question: "Why can't we use this layout for the new park? This looks better than the park we have approved and a plan we paid thousands to develop." The answer was we could look at this but it would take a motion from the council to do so and there wasn't one. Can there still be at a later date?
I know the Peninsula is the bread and butter of this plan and doing it would eventually pay for all the other work (over a decade from now) but since the Council has already set aside money to pay for a new park renovation, why can't they consider Savanah's plan in place of what I am hearing is a lousy plan? Savanah's plan wasn't just some one part plan. She had proposals that can all be independently acted upon with positive results. The windfarm and/or water intake was a great idea. This can be done without doing the rest of the plan and could provide income and resources to pay for other parts of the plan. The park, which has money put aside, could also be done using her plan.
Stephen's "plan to plan" idea is fine if Council was static on the park but they aren't. There are plans in the books and money set aside and it doesn't sound nearly as good as what Savanah has proposed. How do we, as mere taxpaying citizens, say, "whoa, hold it and take a look at this new plan." I didn't see any opportunity to last night and it was clear our city planning gent was already moving on and ready to put her proposal in storage for future planners to look at...possibly as a warning against creativity and community planning.
So seriously...how do we move forward on getting council to take it seriously vs. smiling and "entertaining" the kid, as I interpreted some of the responses I heard last night?
Savannah...seriously great work. Keep it up!
Phil
-
Donald Farris
- Posts: 309
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:31 pm
- Location: Lakewood and points beyond
- Contact:
Hi,
Mr. Calhoun, I thank you for your comments. While, I don’t believe you have had the pleasure of actually hearing any of Savannah’s presentations, I have had the pleasure of hearing many of them. With each one I learn something new that I missed earlier. Her completeness on the design is amazing. Please don’t discount 800 hours of her effort without even a look. Your comment, “figure into what is--for sure--a much more complicated vision than Savannah has outlined.â€Â, I don’t feel is a fair comment from you given you have not taken the time to hear her explain it. Let’s correct that. When can she go over it with you?
Mr. Florian, thanks for coming last night and thanks for the kind words.
Mr. Calhoun, I thank you for your comments. While, I don’t believe you have had the pleasure of actually hearing any of Savannah’s presentations, I have had the pleasure of hearing many of them. With each one I learn something new that I missed earlier. Her completeness on the design is amazing. Please don’t discount 800 hours of her effort without even a look. Your comment, “figure into what is--for sure--a much more complicated vision than Savannah has outlined.â€Â, I don’t feel is a fair comment from you given you have not taken the time to hear her explain it. Let’s correct that. When can she go over it with you?
Mr. Florian, thanks for coming last night and thanks for the kind words.
Mankind must put an end to war or
war will put an end to mankind.
--John F. Kennedy
Stability and peace in our land will not come from the barrel of a gun, because peace without justice is an impossibility.
--Desmond Tutu
war will put an end to mankind.
--John F. Kennedy
Stability and peace in our land will not come from the barrel of a gun, because peace without justice is an impossibility.
--Desmond Tutu
-
Danielle Masters
- Posts: 1139
- Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:39 am
- Location: Lakewood, OH
So seriously...how do we move forward on getting council to take it seriously vs. smiling and "entertaining" the kid, as I interpreted some of the responses I heard last night?
Savannah did a fabulous job last night. I had previously read through the material online but didn't have the opportunity to see her present it. I was impressed. I was not however impressed by the lackluster response from the majority of council. A few of the council people (Antonio, Butler and Demro) seemed to like the plan but I couldn't really get a read on the others. I would have liked to see them ask a few more questions. I hope that they do follow through on some of the ideas and possible look at changing the master plan for Lakewood Park because frankly its not that good.
-
dl meckes
- Posts: 1475
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:29 pm
- Location: Lakewood
There are three at-large council members. They represent everyone in the city. We also have council members who represent residents of each ward.
If citizens want council to look more closely at Ms. Farris's ideas, it would probably be a good idea for us to talk with our council reps.
Those who have done work on their homes knows that altering plans is costly. The city has already paid for a plan and studies and changes cost money that the city doesn't have. However, that doesn't mean that changes can't be made or the park's plan revised.
There is also a feeling by some of our citizens that Lakewood Park gets amenities while Madison Park gets ignored.
But the thing about government is that without civic participation, our representatives can't represent us and on the local level, citizens have much more of a voice and much more power than in any other political arena.
If citizens want council to look more closely at Ms. Farris's ideas, it would probably be a good idea for us to talk with our council reps.
Those who have done work on their homes knows that altering plans is costly. The city has already paid for a plan and studies and changes cost money that the city doesn't have. However, that doesn't mean that changes can't be made or the park's plan revised.
There is also a feeling by some of our citizens that Lakewood Park gets amenities while Madison Park gets ignored.
But the thing about government is that without civic participation, our representatives can't represent us and on the local level, citizens have much more of a voice and much more power than in any other political arena.
“One of they key problems today is that politics is such a disgrace. Good people don’t go into government.”- 45
-
Lynn Farris
- Posts: 559
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:24 pm
- Location: Lakewood, Ohio
- Contact:
I was actually very pleasantly pleased by the response of council last night. They paid attention and asked some good questions before and after the meeting.
Unfortunatley a partner in Savannah's firm showed up late, looking at the docket. He had been in Dubai and studied the huge land reclammation project there. (They do it in 2 years with round the clock work.)
and 
He had also studied doing an 88 acre project on the land at the top of Martin Luther King Blvd. that was reclaimed a few years ago, but they did it wrong making it difficult. He has studied their mistakes and knows how to do it right. He had the chance to talk to the planning director and a few of council after the meeting.
One of the things that impresses me about the council that we have a majority that aren't bound by inertia and alway doing the same old thing. Ryan suggested a great start of fixing the parking and doing the Farmers market/other event market quickly. I think he can and indeed may propose it. And I think council will give it a fair hearing.
Unfortunatley a partner in Savannah's firm showed up late, looking at the docket. He had been in Dubai and studied the huge land reclammation project there. (They do it in 2 years with round the clock work.)
and
He had also studied doing an 88 acre project on the land at the top of Martin Luther King Blvd. that was reclaimed a few years ago, but they did it wrong making it difficult. He has studied their mistakes and knows how to do it right. He had the chance to talk to the planning director and a few of council after the meeting.
One of the things that impresses me about the council that we have a majority that aren't bound by inertia and alway doing the same old thing. Ryan suggested a great start of fixing the parking and doing the Farmers market/other event market quickly. I think he can and indeed may propose it. And I think council will give it a fair hearing.
"Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away." ~ George Carlin
-
Stephen Calhoun
- Posts: 208
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 6:51 pm
- Location: NEO
- Contact:
Don.
Don, my comment wasn't fair. And for the reasons you suggest. But, on the other hand, there's only one way for me to learn if my comment was a good guess.
So, drop off at the technology center of the library at your convenience any written materials that are being made available to the public for review.
We can start with that. Later, after I've developed my own inquiry based in those materials, I'd be happy to meet with Savannah and learn what else there is, not present in the materials, find out what I've missed, and, then ask a few questions.
Perhaps our conversation could be recorded and published as a pod cast.
***
Phil.
'A plan to plan' is an idea entirely promoted from the side of the citizens' voicing their own inquiry about developmental steps. I'm imagining a concrete government-citizen partnership outside of the conventions.
Jim.
What phraseology specifically threw you?
Mr. Calhoun, I thank you for your comments. While, I don’t believe you have had the pleasure of actually hearing any of Savannah’s presentations, I have had the pleasure of hearing many of them. With each one I learn something new that I missed earlier. Her completeness on the design is amazing. Please don’t discount 800 hours of her effort without even a look. Your comment, “figure into what is--for sure--a much more complicated vision than Savannah has outlined.â€Â, I don’t feel is a fair comment from you given you have not taken the time to hear her explain it. Let’s correct that. When can she go over it with you?
Don, my comment wasn't fair. And for the reasons you suggest. But, on the other hand, there's only one way for me to learn if my comment was a good guess.
So, drop off at the technology center of the library at your convenience any written materials that are being made available to the public for review.
We can start with that. Later, after I've developed my own inquiry based in those materials, I'd be happy to meet with Savannah and learn what else there is, not present in the materials, find out what I've missed, and, then ask a few questions.
Perhaps our conversation could be recorded and published as a pod cast.
***
Phil.
'A plan to plan' is an idea entirely promoted from the side of the citizens' voicing their own inquiry about developmental steps. I'm imagining a concrete government-citizen partnership outside of the conventions.
Jim.
What phraseology specifically threw you?
-
dl meckes
- Posts: 1475
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:29 pm
- Location: Lakewood
Stephen Calhoun wrote: I'm imagining a concrete government-citizen partnership outside of the conventions.
This comment leads me to believe that you are under the impression that there are not concrete government-citizen partnerships (conventional or otherwise) in Lakewood.
It is citizen committees that make numerous decisions regarding Lakewood's policy through various boards and committees. There are also any number of committees that are mobilized to look into different areas of city life (Grow Lakewood for one). These committees and boards are not made up of faceless, mindless, soulless drones.
And city council is open to citizen involvement in numerous ways.
I believe it is the citizens who must help direct city government, but my take on your comments is that as an outsider, you appear to be unaware of the depth of the citizen/government partnership that exists in Lakewood. Of course there is always the need for more participation.
That includes your participation. I was under the impression that Savannah's work hung in an Observer office for weeks, yet somehow you were unable to find a few minutes to see it? You request, "So, drop off at the technology center of the library at your convenience any written materials that are being made available to the public for review."
Would that include the very same materials that were published in the Observer and that are available on the Observer website?
“One of they key problems today is that politics is such a disgrace. Good people don’t go into government.”- 45
-
Stephen Calhoun
- Posts: 208
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 6:51 pm
- Location: NEO
- Contact:
Dl. On another thread you, in your role as moderator, smartly point out how a conversation has become (in your words) angry. Actually, I'll quote you because it's relevant,
Okay.
What's up with this?
Nothing in my remarks suggests I haven't dealt with the extant details provided firstly to me when the SP rested on the desk in the library director's office.
What, in actuality, have I requested? I've requested the entirety of the publicly available work so that I can--now--devote time to reading the complete thesis. I am especially interested in the assumptions behind its quantifications, and, what developmental questions it explicitly addresses.
From your response it's hard for me to figure out where you're coming from. Still, it's a striking approach since it would be easy to figure out that my own interests are oriented around details that were not part of the LO article.
If the full thing is at the LO office, I'll come by.
***
To clarify: outside of conventions. The conventional apparati of civic-citizen partnership, though germane, weren't what I was referring to.
Nothing I have suggested has anything to do with your characterization, "faceless, mindless, soulless drones".
"my take on your comments is that as an outsider, you appear to be unaware of the depth of the citizen/government partnership that exists in Lakewood"
You haven't presented any evidence: that this is true; and, that were it true or not, my being an outsider is relevant. DL, this is a scientific challenge I offer you to fulfill.
***
It doesn't need to include those since I've already read 'em. I'm looking to deal with the full boat, the details. Just like I'd like to see the Lakewood Alive full boat.
***
What prompted you making so many incorrect assumptions in a single post?
Both Stephen and Jim enjoy thoughtful and often pointed communication.
I feel the discussion has gone past the point of of being purposeful and investigatory and has degenerated into personal attack.
This makes me very uncomfortable. Not because I shy away from confrontation, but in such a public arena, a private style war does not promote discussion.
I ask you both to reconsider the tone of your discussion and to try to be more civil. I hate seeing the Observation Deck degenerate into an "attack" board.
Okay.
Now comes your timely onslaught of sarcasm, almost in 'my' style,
This comment leads me to believe that you are under the impression that there are not concrete government-citizen partnerships (conventional or otherwise) in Lakewood.
It is citizen committees that make numerous decisions regarding Lakewood's policy through various boards and committees. There are also any number of committees that are mobilized to look into different areas of city life (Grow Lakewood for one). These committees and boards are not made up of faceless, mindless, soulless drones.
And city council is open to citizen involvement in numerous ways.
I believe it is the citizens who must help direct city government, but my take on your comments is that as an outsider, you appear to be unaware of the depth of the citizen/government partnership that exists in Lakewood. Of course there is always the need for more participation.
That includes your participation. I was under the impression that Savannah's work hung in an Observer office for weeks, yet somehow you were unable to find a few minutes to see it? You request, "So, drop off at the technology center of the library at your convenience any written materials that are being made available to the public for review."
What's up with this?
Nothing in my remarks suggests I haven't dealt with the extant details provided firstly to me when the SP rested on the desk in the library director's office.
What, in actuality, have I requested? I've requested the entirety of the publicly available work so that I can--now--devote time to reading the complete thesis. I am especially interested in the assumptions behind its quantifications, and, what developmental questions it explicitly addresses.
From your response it's hard for me to figure out where you're coming from. Still, it's a striking approach since it would be easy to figure out that my own interests are oriented around details that were not part of the LO article.
If the full thing is at the LO office, I'll come by.
***
To clarify: outside of conventions. The conventional apparati of civic-citizen partnership, though germane, weren't what I was referring to.
Nothing I have suggested has anything to do with your characterization, "faceless, mindless, soulless drones".
"my take on your comments is that as an outsider, you appear to be unaware of the depth of the citizen/government partnership that exists in Lakewood"
You haven't presented any evidence: that this is true; and, that were it true or not, my being an outsider is relevant. DL, this is a scientific challenge I offer you to fulfill.
***
You request, "So, drop off at the technology center of the library at your convenience any written materials that are being made available to the public for review."
Would that include the very same materials that were published in the Observer and that are available on the Observer website?
It doesn't need to include those since I've already read 'em. I'm looking to deal with the full boat, the details. Just like I'd like to see the Lakewood Alive full boat.
***
What prompted you making so many incorrect assumptions in a single post?
-
dl meckes
- Posts: 1475
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:29 pm
- Location: Lakewood
-
Charyn Varkonyi
Please stop.
I did not enjoy the personal attacks in the other thread nor do I enjoy them here. I have MANY times had to sit on my hand because I wanted to reach out and 'smack' someone with my virtual typewriter; however, I did not.
If there is confusion about what someone has written I would appreciate it if everyone would take to time and have the consideration to pose a specific and pointed question of clarification. If you cannot do that, then please - sit on YOUR hands.
Comments like "huh?" or "you are incomprehensible" are simple uncalled for and not at all appreciated.
(and I dint mean to pick on any single - there were other similar comments in the other thread, I am just too lazy to go quote them when these examples will suffice)
PEACE (dangitt!!!)
~Charyn
I did not enjoy the personal attacks in the other thread nor do I enjoy them here. I have MANY times had to sit on my hand because I wanted to reach out and 'smack' someone with my virtual typewriter; however, I did not.
If there is confusion about what someone has written I would appreciate it if everyone would take to time and have the consideration to pose a specific and pointed question of clarification. If you cannot do that, then please - sit on YOUR hands.
Comments like "huh?" or "you are incomprehensible" are simple uncalled for and not at all appreciated.
(and I dint mean to pick on any single - there were other similar comments in the other thread, I am just too lazy to go quote them when these examples will suffice)
PEACE (dangitt!!!)
~Charyn
-
Stephen Calhoun
- Posts: 208
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 6:51 pm
- Location: NEO
- Contact:
Huh?
Your response shows you understood exactingly what I was requesting.
***
We have this developing notion about comprehensibility; I'll name it the Dustin Thesis.
***
What sentence do you not comprehend? We could start there.
***
But I don't see how the incorrect assumptions follow from your statement. You believe me to be unaware, fine. It isn't any less of a mistake, however.
Your response shows you understood exactingly what I was requesting.
***
We have this developing notion about comprehensibility; I'll name it the Dustin Thesis.
***
What sentence do you not comprehend? We could start there.
***
But I don't see how the incorrect assumptions follow from your statement. You believe me to be unaware, fine. It isn't any less of a mistake, however.
-
dl meckes
- Posts: 1475
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:29 pm
- Location: Lakewood
Stephen, I don't intend to attack and I do see your point about attacking style over substance.
I do not understand the overarching concept of your inquiries. It is not a simple sentence-by-sentence matter of comprehension. It is a big picture matter of my simply being unable to understand your thinking.
For instance, what has been made public from Savannah's thesis has been made public. So, since I am a simple-minded person, I don't understand your request. Savannah also has a huge binder that represents many hours of her work which I'm sure she would be willing to share with you, but that has not been made available unless specifically requested (or one read through it while it was at the Observer office). If, as you say, "Nothing in my remarks suggests I haven't dealt with the extant details provided firstly to me when the SP rested on the desk in the library director's office, " then I am really confused about your request for materials outside of the scope of what Savannah has provided.
As far as I know, the final Grow Lakewood report is on the library's site.
I will cop to (and I apologize for) sarcastic frustration in the "yet somehow you were unable to find a few minutes to see it" comment. I am frustrated, but I am also seriously asking you questions. It would have been better for me to follow my own advice and ask, "did you see it?" (Since answered).
The mention of an unconventional public/private partnership implies that such things do not presently exist. What does that mean?
I did go overboard with "faceless, mindless, soulless drones" but I also know the kind of commitment that goes into serving on those boards and committees.
Perhaps you were talking about an unconventional develpment-related or fiscal public/private relationship, but I couldn't understand that from what you wrote.
Sitting face to face, we could easily hash out misunderstandings. Discussing it in writing is maddeningly easy to misinterpret and misunderstand.
I apologize for expressing my frustration in the manner I did. You have such a unique viewpoint that I wish I could better understand your thinking process and meaning.
I do not understand the overarching concept of your inquiries. It is not a simple sentence-by-sentence matter of comprehension. It is a big picture matter of my simply being unable to understand your thinking.
For instance, what has been made public from Savannah's thesis has been made public. So, since I am a simple-minded person, I don't understand your request. Savannah also has a huge binder that represents many hours of her work which I'm sure she would be willing to share with you, but that has not been made available unless specifically requested (or one read through it while it was at the Observer office). If, as you say, "Nothing in my remarks suggests I haven't dealt with the extant details provided firstly to me when the SP rested on the desk in the library director's office, " then I am really confused about your request for materials outside of the scope of what Savannah has provided.
As far as I know, the final Grow Lakewood report is on the library's site.
I will cop to (and I apologize for) sarcastic frustration in the "yet somehow you were unable to find a few minutes to see it" comment. I am frustrated, but I am also seriously asking you questions. It would have been better for me to follow my own advice and ask, "did you see it?" (Since answered).
The mention of an unconventional public/private partnership implies that such things do not presently exist. What does that mean?
I did go overboard with "faceless, mindless, soulless drones" but I also know the kind of commitment that goes into serving on those boards and committees.
Perhaps you were talking about an unconventional develpment-related or fiscal public/private relationship, but I couldn't understand that from what you wrote.
Sitting face to face, we could easily hash out misunderstandings. Discussing it in writing is maddeningly easy to misinterpret and misunderstand.
I apologize for expressing my frustration in the manner I did. You have such a unique viewpoint that I wish I could better understand your thinking process and meaning.
“One of they key problems today is that politics is such a disgrace. Good people don’t go into government.”- 45
-
Stephen Calhoun
- Posts: 208
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 6:51 pm
- Location: NEO
- Contact:
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, DL.
We can address your questions elsewhere.
***
Yes, given what Don has described, I'm very much interested in seeing what the SP is in its details. I'm sure Don has picked up on the request since he's also followed up--already--with an offer.
The full Grow Lakewood report has not been supplied to the library as far as I know. There is, in the catalog, listed:
Lakewood Alive: the insider's perspective on the Grow Lakewood report [DVD]
We can address your questions elsewhere.
***
Yes, given what Don has described, I'm very much interested in seeing what the SP is in its details. I'm sure Don has picked up on the request since he's also followed up--already--with an offer.
The full Grow Lakewood report has not been supplied to the library as far as I know. There is, in the catalog, listed:
Lakewood Alive: the insider's perspective on the Grow Lakewood report [DVD]